Double Exposure

Robert Peirce wrote:
[]
There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded
RAW isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if
I'm ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine,
pun intended.

Congratulations on actually making the tests rather than following the
crowd. I have made similar tests, and concluded that "normal" was indeed
acceptable, and that the very small level of extra artefacts introduced
was OK for me.

What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is
the prime advantage of using RAW?

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:
[]

There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded
RAW isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if
I'm ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine,
pun intended.


Congratulations on actually making the tests rather than following the
crowd. I have made similar tests, and concluded that "normal" was indeed
acceptable, and that the very small level of extra artefacts introduced
was OK for me.

What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is
the prime advantage of using RAW?

Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4
What that told me is that raw is capable of getting a wee bit more
detail and sharpness at the price of more noise. And that the jpegs out
of the camera do a darn good job of balancing all that. I decided to
shoot raw plus jpeg and I'm usually happy with the jpegs, the raw files
are mostly useful when I get the exposure or white balance wrong as a
second lease on life. For the sharpness & noise issue, it is true that
all gets muddled in the printing so I agree the difference is really
minor and probably hard to detect at all. The raw conversion process is
nice for batch adjustments of white balance corrections and recovering
bad exposures or extreme high dynamic range scenes (which is a lot of work).

Paul Furman wrote:
[]
Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4
What that told me is that raw is capable of getting a wee bit more
detail and sharpness at the price of more noise. And that the jpegs
out of the camera do a darn good job of balancing all that. I decided to
shoot raw plus jpeg and I'm usually happy with the jpegs, the raw
files are mostly useful when I get the exposure or white balance wrong
as a
second lease on life. For the sharpness & noise issue, it is true that
all gets muddled in the printing so I agree the difference is really
minor and probably hard to detect at all. The raw conversion process
is nice for batch adjustments of white balance corrections and
recovering bad exposures or extreme high dynamic range scenes (which is
a lot of
work).

Thanks, Paul, that's an interesting comparison. What do you mean by
"noise+4" in the middle image? Is this some noise reduction you've used?

You raise a good point about the final image - I very rarely print, so
what appears on the display is what matters to me. And that display will
usually have fewer pixels than the source image. But if I do print, than
it's a different set of optimisations that I ought, perhaps, to apply.....

I never do raw, and prefer to get things "right first time" in the camera
where possible. So I have colour balanced JPEGs - the purists would be
horrified!

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4
What that told me is that raw is capable of getting a wee bit more
detail and sharpness at the price of more noise. And that the jpegs
out of the camera do a darn good job of balancing all that. I decided to
shoot raw plus jpeg and I'm usually happy with the jpegs, the raw
files are mostly useful when I get the exposure or white balance wrong
as a
second lease on life. For the sharpness & noise issue, it is true that
all gets muddled in the printing so I agree the difference is really
minor and probably hard to detect at all. The raw conversion process
is nice for batch adjustments of white balance corrections and
recovering bad exposures or extreme high dynamic range scenes (which is
a lot of work).

Thanks, Paul, that's an interesting comparison. What do you mean by
"noise+4" in the middle image? Is this some noise reduction you've used?

That means +4 on the noise reduction slider in Adobe Camera Raw if I
recall correctly, in an attempt to match the jpeg noise reduction (not
easy). Also those examples are super-boosted with curves to exaggerate
the contrast. Nikon D70, ACR CS1.

You raise a good point about the final image - I very rarely print, so
what appears on the display is what matters to me. And that display will
usually have fewer pixels than the source image. But if I do print, than
it's a different set of optimisations that I ought, perhaps, to apply.....

I never do raw, and prefer to get things "right first time" in the camera
where possible. So I have colour balanced JPEGs - the purists would be
horrified!

For careful shooting that's a better time saver. For working quick on
the run, it's hard to set white balance every time & check the histogram
etc.

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message k...
Robert Peirce wrote:
[]
There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded
RAW isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if
I'm ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine,
pun intended.

Congratulations on actually making the tests rather than following the
crowd. I have made similar tests, and concluded that "normal" was indeed
acceptable, and that the very small level of extra artefacts introduced
was OK for me.

What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is
the prime advantage of using RAW?



Here's my test--shoot a wedding with JPEG Fine, and then spend a couple days
struggling to get the exposure/color right on those few that are all messed
up, and which the bride is gonna have a fit over. Then shoot another one in
RAW and don't have those worries. You'll never shoot JPEG Fine again. I
know I haven't.


--
www.mattclara.com

In article ,
"David J Taylor"
wrote:

What tests have you done to demonstrate the extra dynamic range which is
the prime advantage of using RAW?

Another interesting concept. I come from the ancient order of
pre-visualizers. If the shot I get is what I want, then I have
everything I need. If the range of the shot exceeds the capabilities of
the camera, then I use fill or screens or whatever to modify the light.

You have to know the limitations of your equipment, whether you are
using RAW or jpg. RAW may give you a little more range; I don't know.
What I want to know is what I can do with what I am using. If it isn't
good enough then I need something better.

So far I haven't seen a need for RAW and I worry what might happen down
the road when standards change. Sure, jpg or tif may change too but
probably not as fast as RAW. As it is, each manufacturer has his own
definition of RAW and his definition is subject to change. Everybody's
definition of jpg and tif seems to be the same, at least for now.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Here's my test--shoot a wedding with JPEG Fine, and then spend a couple days
struggling to get the exposure/color right on those few that are all messed
up, and which the bride is gonna have a fit over. Then shoot another one in
RAW and don't have those worries. You'll never shoot JPEG Fine again. I
know I haven't.

I hate to say this because it sounds like carping, but why would you
even try to save a blown shot? Time is money. You are never going to
recover the cost of spending a couple of days to recover one shot.
Throw it away. The nice thing about digital that we never had with film
is that there is virtually no incremental cost to taking another shot.
If one is bad, another will be good. Use the good one.

Furthermore, a bad shot is a bad shot. The only way RAW will save you
is if it is only a little bit bad. If it is a little bit bad, several
additional shots taken at the same time are likely to be better. If it
is really bad, you are out of luck.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:

Here's an ugly old test I did to sell myself on using raw:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...s-jpg&PG=1&PIC

I am going to save this URL and check it out. I have an open mind about
RAW, but so far nobody is convincing me.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" wrote:

Raw contains more control over the final image-period. If you shoot in
Raw you can always convert back to a jpeg if that your thing. Where you
see the benefits of shooting raw is when you have to control highlights
or do some sort of editing of the image before printing.

I guess I am missing something. Pixels are pixels. Why would RAW offer
more controls than jpg or tif? I edit the latter all the time. The
software I use, LightZone, gives me complete control regardless of what
the file structure is. In fact, when you load a RAW file, it uses some
of its standard controls to pre-process it.

For me, the only critical criteria is what does the print look like? If
it matches my "vision" then I am happy. RAW, 12 or 16-bit and so on
sound terrific, but so far I am not seeing the benefit of any of these
things in my prints.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

I just completed another test -- window screen against tie wall, macro
focus on screen. I took a 1000 pixel, 4x6 crop as for a 20x30
enlargement. Again, aside from minor color shifts, there was no
difference among RAW, Fine, Normal and Basic. This is actually quite
amazing to me because I was sure Basic would not be anywhere near as
good as RAW.

I have to do more tests. There has to be something to show the
superiority of higher quality over lower, unless it is all marketing
hype, or unless the final criteria is other than the print. Maybe it
only shows up for really big prints, but if so, that really isn't a
concern of mine. I would use 4x5 for posters.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]